I have just recently changed from BING to BIBM which I have installed on one of my two Hard Drives.I am the sole user of my PC and only intend using BIBM to create Image Files of my Hard Drives as I did when using BING.I do not intend to employ Multi Boot.

Observation 1 The first thing I notice about BIBM which is different from BING is that when you get into the WORKING WITH PARTITIONS" there is no mention of the word "IMAGE" that I can see . It talks about creating "COPIES" using "IMAGE FOR DOS" which seems to be already included when BIBM is installed. As far as I remember with BING if you wanted to use IMAGE FOR DOS , this had to be separately installed but was not necessary in order to create an Image File.

Is this an intended difference ?

Observation 2I have created an Image File of my C:\ using BIBM - ( I think ! ) - and have obtained a file which is entitled "xxxx.TBO" .Here I used the "COPY" command- is the resulting .tbo file an Image File or merely a COPY ?Do BIBM Image Files all have .tbo extensions ? as opposed to the .img extensions used by BING ?

Observation 3 I notice that I can now open these BIBM ".tbo" files by just clicking on them and , moreover , this opens them more quicklythan when I used "TBIView" with BING. I presume the use of "TBIView" is no longer required with BIBM ?

thenoo wrote:I have just recently changed from BING to BIBM which I have installed on one of my two Hard Drives.I am the sole user of my PC and only intend using BIBM to create Image Files of my Hard Drives as I did when using BING.I do not intend to employ Multi Boot.

Observation 1 The first thing I notice about BIBM which is different from BING is that when you get into the WORKING WITH PARTITIONS" there is no mention of the word "IMAGE" that I can see . It talks about creating "COPIES" using "IMAGE FOR DOS" which seems to be already included when BIBM is installed. As far as I remember with BING if you wanted to use IMAGE FOR DOS , this had to be separately installed but was not necessary in order to create an Image File.

Is this an intended difference ?

Yes, it's intended. Image for Dos (IFD) is included with BIBM. In BIBM, you shouldn't get into WORKING WITH PARTITIONS to create images. When you create the BIBM boot media using MAKEDISK, you should check the option to include Image for DOS. If you do that, there will be a "Disk Imaging", I think it is, icon on the BIBM desktop. Use that rather than "Working With Partitions" to create images. The "Disk Imaging" will invoke the included IFD.

thenoo wrote:Observation 2I have created an Image File of my C:\ using BIBM - ( I think ! ) - and have obtained a file which is entitled "xxxx.TBO" .Here I used the "COPY" command- is the resulting .tbo file an Image File or merely a COPY ?Do BIBM Image Files all have .tbo extensions ? as opposed to the .img extensions used by BING ?

I would think if you have a single file it must be an image, but I don't honestly know what you've done or what you've created here. Maybe you've discovered some function that I'm not aware of. As far as I know, both copying and creating an image have to be done via IFD as I've indicated above. BIBM/IFD image files I've seen have the extension .TBI, not .IMG or .TBO.

thenoo wrote:Observation 3 I notice that I can now open these BIBM ".tbo" files by just clicking on them and , moreover , this opens them more quicklythan when I used "TBIView" with BING. I presume the use of "TBIView" is no longer required with BIBM ?

I can't really answer this. Again, I don't know what a .tbo file is or how it gets created. I can open .tbi files by double clicking them, but that's because they are associated with TBIView.

This is a reply to R.Coleman with apologies for not using a quote in this reply as , although familiar generally with generating a suitable quote in a NG reply , I can't see just how to do it in this NG.

Anyway I used a missquote in my original post when I referred to a created file with a ".tbo" extension - I meant ,of course, to say a "tbi" extension.

As I said I presume , therefore , the use of TbivIew is not necessary when using BIBM in order to view Image Files created with that App unlike when viewing files created with BING ?

Is it always generally faster using the TBIView facility built-in with BIBM than it was in BING ?

I can't conveniently test the point because I have TBIView installed, but I can't imagine how the contents of the image file can be viewed unless some application is doing it. I assume the point is viewing the image file contents in Windows. If so, some TBIView like facility being built in to BIBM doesn't seem likely because when Windows is active, BIBM isn't. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I can't help but wonder if TBIView is somehow being used inadvertently.

I do observe that TBIView opens the BIBM .tbi files much faster than the BING .img files. I've assumed that this is due to different formats of the files themselves though it could be due to improvements in TBIView itself.